The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.

Heink: I was born in 1937, in Germany, a long story and not the issue here. In 1959 my wife and I, along with our 1-year-old son, moved to Canada. At first, World War II was still being fought when talking to Canadians, with “The Holocaust” creeping in only later. I was young and busy trying to make a living, and really had no reason to doubt the official version – what is presented as history. But this constant “Germany responsible for all the ills” started to grate on me, and having opted to get out of the rat race, I moved to a small village where I decided to take a closer look. That was in 1982... [snip]

Heink: I am appalled and find it hard to believe that we, as an ‘enlightened’ society, still practice witch-hunting. Historiography should be void of emotions, based on facts, on material available and must always be open to revision should new data become available.

Ernst Nolte, a German historian, who initiated the Historikerstreit (historians dispute) of the late 80s, devotes a whole chapter “On Revisionism”(Chapter 6) in his debate with Francois Furet, a French historian, published as Fascism & Communism. It is available at Amazon.

Nolte wrote:

“But doesn’t it follow that historian whose research is focused on anti-Semitism is no more anti-Semitic than a historian who focuses on the American, English or French Revolutions is a revolutionary? One, like the other, is under the same obligation – to approach his subject with detachment, motivated by a desire for objectivity, in no instance content to express hostile remarks, however clear his own conclusions might be.”

Every historian researching German history should have this book on his desk. Looking at German history as presented, detachment or objectivity do not come to mind; it appears to be a collection of consensuses and personal interpretations, emotional nonsense, rather than facts.

Research has to be “pedantic,” detailed, if it is to be accurate. And, why not invite Revisionists to those gatherings, have them present their material and prove to them that they are wrong, publicly? This would be the only convincing method to combat “Holocaust denial,” as it is termed. If solid counter-arguments are presented, Holocaust Revisionists would have to fold their tents, and they would.

Freedom of speech is the issue, and no doubt some historians are intimidated by the prospect of losing their livelihood should their treatments not confirm the official version. That is the sad part, but it also strengthens the Revisionists’ case, for it shows that open research must be prevented from happening at all costs, the official version being unable to pass muster.

What can be done? A tough question and I don’t have the answer. I believe it was Ernst Zündel, imprisoned for seven years for doubting the official version, who said that we do not need more people in jail. I agree. We need to play by whatever rules are enforced upon us. There are, however, issues that can be addressed, so far without fear of persecution. One of them is World War I, i.e., who was responsible for it and what was the reason for starting it. This then would lead to World War II, because we cannot understand one without taking the other into account. If it can be demonstrated that we have been led down the primrose path right from the beginning, that is from the lead-up to World War I, we should be able to place doubt into the minds of those interested as to the veracity of the rest of the official version.

Aside from the restrictions on research, we also have this ‘those interested’ issue. Is anyone, other than a handful of us, really interested in setting the record straight, as it were? I doubt it; the people I talk to are comfortable with the victor’s version; not only that, they believe it is fact-based. Every year we have the Veterans Day parade on November 11, at first called Armistice Day. Banners are carried, reading: “If you like your Freedoms, thank a veteran.” I asked one of them what exactly this refers to, knowing full well what the answer would be. And sure enough, he told me that he and his buddies saved the world, the Germans tried twice to conquer it all. They fought “The good war”, or so they were/are told, and nobody will convince them otherwise, and that goes for their families as well.
Will we, a small handful, be able to make a difference, win them over, prove to them that they were lied to and used? I doubt it, but I for one will trudge on.

Just to let you know, I was told today that I have ‘month’ to live, the cancer is spreading rapidly. Consequently my contributions will be few and far between, if any.

Getting to know some of you enriched my life, thank you. And for those on the side of The Truth, keep up the good fight, the lies will eventually have to give way.

All the best to you all
Wilf

As a pantheist I would say there is, in a metaphysical sense, life after death, as the material world was, indeed, created by a supernatural "God" (although not in the sense of the revealed "Gods", e.g., Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and everything material that has existed continues to exist metaphysically in the memory of "God". This is all a very complex philosophical question and I recommend that you study Spinoza and Hegel if you have time. I do indeed take this all very seriously as I recently had a heart attack, and I expect this to recur soon enough. Atheism its indeed a lot of bullshit and this can be realised if you study Hegel especially. I can't say any more at present as I havent time, but IF you are interested I would be happy to expand on what I haVE SAID HERE.

Take care of yourself Ralph. We will all one day be gone from this world. There's no getting around that. Musing about the meaning, purpose, or function of life and the universe may be fun and/or interesting but it is a futile exercise for us mere mortals. My best advice to you:

NO, not really. That is simply not facing up to realities, with all due respect. I was trying to give some comfort to the guy with cancer due to die soon, on the basis of my study of philosophy, while such matters as the "Holocaust" are only of peripheral importance, especially since if you are an anarcho-nihilist like myself, who is only interested in theory in relation my own egotistical self-interest.

If we study philosophy in relation the question of "God" I would say that we are able to come to terms psychologically withe fact of death. I would say that all the established revealed religions, such the Christian denominations, are all just superstitious bullshit (although they have a rational kernel, in the sense that serious philosophy recognises the supernatural -- or supranatural -- as a valid concept, which the pantheist perspective of Hegel, say. recognises cannot be ignored), so that notions of "Heaven" and "Hell" are anthropomorphic nonsense, as "God" necessarily transcends the anthropomorphic; thus, all material matter ultimately perishes, including humans, and we just revert to being part of "God" in an immanent sense as a non-material mode, and what more could we want than that!

rollo the ganger wrote:Take care of yourself Ralph. We will all one day be gone from this world. There's no getting around that. Musing about the meaning, purpose, or function of life and the universe may be fun and/or interesting but it is a futile exercise for us mere mortals. My best advice to you: (SOME FUCKUP HERE, TRYING TO USE AN APPLE LAPTOP IN THE APPLE STORE!)